The court emphasized the need for substantial evidence linking common intention and injury severity to uphold murder convictions under IPC despite the flawed charge framing.

1. A curious and somewhat interesting point has been canvassed in this criminal appeal which essentially revealves around the question as to whether in a case where multiple injuries, none of them of a grave nature, have been inflicted and the victim has died as a result thereof, whether a conviction under S.302, of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable. For purposes of that proposition, one need to further state that the injuries in question are on non - vital parts of the body and in these circumstances the moot point that arises is as to whether in the absence of specific evidence that any of these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it would be correct in law to sustain the conviction awarded by the trial Court under S.302, of the Indian Penal Code. The subsidiary issue canvassed was with regard to an allegedly defective charge and its effect on the trial, if the point is raised for the first time at the appellate stage. Where it is contended that the charge is defective and it does appear to be so, whether that aspect alone would be sufficient to vitiate the trial or whether it is to be regarded as a mere irregularity that is essentially curable. We need to first recount the brief facts.

2. The incident in question took place at about 9-30 p. m. on the night of 2-5-1988 at Kumbhar Galli Chowk, Rajgalikhurd. It is alleged that there was some dispute going on in the Kumbhar Family with regard to the occupation of the family house. Pursuant to that dispute, it is alleged that the deceased Jotiba on that night after completing his dinner made his way from his house to the Chowk where a panshop was located. The Accused, who are also from the same clan, are alleged to have followed him and mercilessly assaulted him. Accused No. 1 is alleged to have used a stick. Accused No. 2. Koyta and Accused No. 3 a knife. The prosecution witnesses allege that these three persons assaulted Jotiba with the weapons in question as a result of which there was a commotion. According to the witnesses, accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were instigating accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to continue to assult and not to leave Jotiba alive. Jotiba's wife Shantava (PW 7) and his mother Gangavva (PW 10) had rushed to that spot on hearing the commotion and they allege that in trying to rescue Jotiba they had also sustained certain injuries. According to the witnesses, Jotiba died on the spot and, therefore, there was no question of taking him anywhere for medical assistance. It is also contended that the matter was reported to the Police Patil, but since the village in question was located in a relatively remote area that it was only in the next morning that the witnesses could make their way to the Police Station and the First Information Report was lodged at 11-15 A. M. on the next day, i.e. after 14 hours. The Police thereafter commenced their investigations and arrested the six accused persons. According to the prosecution, in the course of the investigation, accused No. 2 made a statement that he would produce certain weapons and pursuant to the statement he led the Police and the Panchas to a particular place in the farmland from where the stick, the sickle and the knife were produced. There is, however, no evidence to indicate that these weapons were sent for chemical analyses. On completion of the investigations, the six accused were put up for trial and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur framed charges against them under S.302, S.325 and S.324 read with S.149, of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. According to them, the deceased Jotiba, who owned a panshop, used to also sell sodawater from his shop and that persons who were given to the consumption of alcohol used to frequent that place and it is alleged that in the course of some dispute including the persons who were already drunk that Jotiba came to be assulted and that because of the background of the house dispute, Jotib